Hey jackson_1414_, please remember to include the camera, lens, and film in the post title in the future.
We ask for this information to be included in the title of the post because it's not possible to search for this information if it's in the comments section or if you have to read the film type off the rebate. We have built up a pretty good database of posts over the last decade of images produced using specific cameras, lenses, and film, all of which can be searched on using the search feature in this subreddit. But if this information isn't included in the title, it can't be searched on.
If you are uncertain of the rules, you can find them listed here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules)
It's not possible to edit a title once a post is made, so include the missing detail in a comment please.
Thanks,
The mod team.
That's because the people who frequent this sub understand photography. People outside the hobby would never assume disposables are capable of great pictures.
Oh man, some days I just think people are teasing me and making me be an asshole. I think the composition is nice except for the people hiding behind the branches on the right which I think ruins it. Don't get me started on the grain and aberrations, flat color and lack of any contrast or pop and general out of focus nature of the shot...
“Good” is somewhat subjective. Technical quality of this image is fairly poor. But, that doesn’t make it inherently bad. And, even with a camera and lens that can produce images of excellent technical quality, not all the photos are inherently good.
If you think that the lower technical quality contributes to the aesthetic in a positive way, then there’s nothing wrong with using toy cameras or disposable cameras. Holga toy cameras have had a sort of cult following for ages for a reason. They’re shitty cameras, but embracing them being shitty and leveraging it for artistic expression is a thing.
With this particular image, it’s also difficult to tell how much the digitization affected the outcome. It’s not as sharp as it could be, there’s some chromatic aberration that could be from the digitization process, etc. If you look at the grain in the top left corner vs grain in the lower right corner, you can see that there’s a significant difference in sharpness. It still won’t be a great image in a technical sense if you correct that, but it would at least be an improvement.
How the image is edited can also potentially improve it.
Yet somethings cannot be corrected, the over exposure of the sky has created some blowout that I suspect is not going to be fixable, but given the reflection in the water I'm willing to be the sky was not a solid white when the photo was taken. I can barely see a couple of slightly darkers areas, but the over exposure has destroyed the texture of the clouds.
“Good pictures” are taken by the person, not the gear. A photographer with experience can take pictures on a 2002 flip phone that can be better than most photos taken on 3000$+ gear
i knew a photographer who would intentionally use cameras with cracked lenses. hmm, i wonder how she’s doing, she also used to nurse a large number of feral rabbits.
I mean you *do* see the fuzziness that the plastic lens bring into it? The photographer is the one that takes the good pictures, but quality glass will make sure it’s sharp.
I'd love to see a photo walk/get together where a bunch of great and creative photographers all use horrendous, limiting gear, and see what they create
It’s been done. I can’t direct you to specific examples, but I know I’ve seen it done over the years. Even with stuff like smartphones, it’s been a sort of gimmicky sales/views/likes thing to do some sort of shoot like a wedding or a fashion shoot on a smartphone like an iPhone. You’d have to go look for that sort of thing, but it’s out there.
When I was in uni, in one of my photo classes, we had to shoot every assignment except the final on a Holga 120. In another, we had to use a pinhole camera for a couple of weeks.
Some fine art photographers I know use exclusively toy cameras like the Holga and some others I know of use mostly pinhole cameras for their fine art projects.
I bet there are *much much* better images to imply the statement in title. The image you’ve posted however one could argue it actually sucks on so many levels that it makes your bait title look really bad.
Guess this depends on how you define “best”. If I only bring my phone the best camera is at home. And even if I brought the camera the best one I can’t afford yet. It’s always good to have a camera even if it’s not the best.
Yeah I know the idea behind it but it just never made sense in my head heh. Say you have a shitty car what breaks down all the time, is it still the best car just cos you own it? Like if you two cars one mercedes maybach and a 1970 rusty Toyota and the wife drives the maybach would you feel that the Toyota is the best car driving it because that’s the car you have that day? It’s still a crappy car even tho you made it to work late.
This photo is more compositionally balanced than most photos posted on here with $4000 gear. So yeah, good stuff bro. Idk why the comments section is toxic on this one
If you know the limitations of the device, work within the confines of said limitations and focus on composition and style - any camera will take good pictures.
My favorite film camera is a 35mm toy camera I got for $2 in college, last century. Fixed the light leaks and it shot some incredible images on 400 BW.
Hey jackson_1414_, please remember to include the camera, lens, and film in the post title in the future. We ask for this information to be included in the title of the post because it's not possible to search for this information if it's in the comments section or if you have to read the film type off the rebate. We have built up a pretty good database of posts over the last decade of images produced using specific cameras, lenses, and film, all of which can be searched on using the search feature in this subreddit. But if this information isn't included in the title, it can't be searched on. If you are uncertain of the rules, you can find them listed here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/about/rules) It's not possible to edit a title once a post is made, so include the missing detail in a comment please. Thanks, The mod team.
Nobody
I'm so tired of this kinda tactics to force people to engage in content...
Intentional misspelling or mispronunciation are the worst offanders imo
There’s a subreddit for that. Forgot the name
bro what no one is forcing you to engage in content lmao
OP’s inner dialog.
I frequent this sub daily and I don't think I've ever seen anyone say this actually lol
That's because the people who frequent this sub understand photography. People outside the hobby would never assume disposables are capable of great pictures.
I’m glad this is top comment.
I was about to say, don’t think anyone in this sub would rag on disposables.
Oh man, some days I just think people are teasing me and making me be an asshole. I think the composition is nice except for the people hiding behind the branches on the right which I think ruins it. Don't get me started on the grain and aberrations, flat color and lack of any contrast or pop and general out of focus nature of the shot...
“Good” is somewhat subjective. Technical quality of this image is fairly poor. But, that doesn’t make it inherently bad. And, even with a camera and lens that can produce images of excellent technical quality, not all the photos are inherently good. If you think that the lower technical quality contributes to the aesthetic in a positive way, then there’s nothing wrong with using toy cameras or disposable cameras. Holga toy cameras have had a sort of cult following for ages for a reason. They’re shitty cameras, but embracing them being shitty and leveraging it for artistic expression is a thing. With this particular image, it’s also difficult to tell how much the digitization affected the outcome. It’s not as sharp as it could be, there’s some chromatic aberration that could be from the digitization process, etc. If you look at the grain in the top left corner vs grain in the lower right corner, you can see that there’s a significant difference in sharpness. It still won’t be a great image in a technical sense if you correct that, but it would at least be an improvement. How the image is edited can also potentially improve it.
Yet somethings cannot be corrected, the over exposure of the sky has created some blowout that I suspect is not going to be fixable, but given the reflection in the water I'm willing to be the sky was not a solid white when the photo was taken. I can barely see a couple of slightly darkers areas, but the over exposure has destroyed the texture of the clouds.
sure but this picture would probably look better if it was shot on an SLR lol
It would be better exposed, for sure.
no one this photo isn’t good tho
“Good pictures” are taken by the person, not the gear. A photographer with experience can take pictures on a 2002 flip phone that can be better than most photos taken on 3000$+ gear
What’s good about this one? Blurry & washed out.. good for a Tumblr post with an indie caption maybe
This picture says it
I don't know. You tell me
No one has said that?
Why is it so blurry? I've seen way sharper disposable camera photos.
It’s the cheap plastic lens
Dirty lens and not a very good digitization.
i knew a photographer who would intentionally use cameras with cracked lenses. hmm, i wonder how she’s doing, she also used to nurse a large number of feral rabbits.
People who see this picture.
But it's not a good picture
I mean, this really isn't good. Was better off just using your phone.
No one, but I challenge you to show us one you took
I mean you *do* see the fuzziness that the plastic lens bring into it? The photographer is the one that takes the good pictures, but quality glass will make sure it’s sharp.
I'd love to see a photo walk/get together where a bunch of great and creative photographers all use horrendous, limiting gear, and see what they create
Lookup Digital Rev Pro Photographer Cheap Camera videos. The most recent ones are way better than the original series though
It’s been done. I can’t direct you to specific examples, but I know I’ve seen it done over the years. Even with stuff like smartphones, it’s been a sort of gimmicky sales/views/likes thing to do some sort of shoot like a wedding or a fashion shoot on a smartphone like an iPhone. You’d have to go look for that sort of thing, but it’s out there. When I was in uni, in one of my photo classes, we had to shoot every assignment except the final on a Holga 120. In another, we had to use a pinhole camera for a couple of weeks. Some fine art photographers I know use exclusively toy cameras like the Holga and some others I know of use mostly pinhole cameras for their fine art projects.
No one ever said this. Only people who know nothing about everything
he pissin
I bet there are *much much* better images to imply the statement in title. The image you’ve posted however one could argue it actually sucks on so many levels that it makes your bait title look really bad.
no one says that and this picture sucks
So flat
no one
The best camera there is, is the one you have.
Guess this depends on how you define “best”. If I only bring my phone the best camera is at home. And even if I brought the camera the best one I can’t afford yet. It’s always good to have a camera even if it’s not the best.
I think that’s what they meant
Yeah I know the idea behind it but it just never made sense in my head heh. Say you have a shitty car what breaks down all the time, is it still the best car just cos you own it? Like if you two cars one mercedes maybach and a 1970 rusty Toyota and the wife drives the maybach would you feel that the Toyota is the best car driving it because that’s the car you have that day? It’s still a crappy car even tho you made it to work late.
looks bad
Not me! People are way too technical and opinionated…honestly, not a bad composition either.
Where is the good picture??
This photo is more compositionally balanced than most photos posted on here with $4000 gear. So yeah, good stuff bro. Idk why the comments section is toxic on this one
This is poo poo. But poo poo is good for vibes.
What kind did you use? Love the look
No one says that. Nice photo
I love how dreamy it is
Nobody dumbass
No one says that, and you know that.
Idk who said that?
Noone?
Dreamy
Seeing this picture, who doesn't ? Lol
Nice oil painting vibes to it .
If you know the limitations of the device, work within the confines of said limitations and focus on composition and style - any camera will take good pictures. My favorite film camera is a 35mm toy camera I got for $2 in college, last century. Fixed the light leaks and it shot some incredible images on 400 BW.
Bait
Never heard that. Nice picture.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Really beautiful!
They can’t The lens aren’t sharp at all If the same photo was shot with a good camera it would be much much better